Genelec 1032A Measurements (including spinorama)

[TimVG]

Today I performed measurements of the Genelec 1032A speaker. This is a model dating back to 1992, and it is the largest 2-way model made by Genelec. It is also the model I'm using as LCR in my small home theater room. The most recent version is the 1032C so in a way, despite it being a 28 year old design, it is still a current model in a basic sense.

The measurements were performed in a large space at 2m distance using the ground plane method which yields good accuracy using a 15ms gated window. Ended up making a platform and putting the speaker 6ft up in the air in a room with a height of 13ft. Special thanks to members Hardisj and Napilopez for tech support.

Measurements were performed using the acoustic axis as stated in the manual, which is at 29cm from the bottom up and roughly inbetween the woofer and tweeter, and was aimed directly at the microphone capsule.

Since I don't have the software needed to properly weight the measurements to present a proper spinorama, I was hoping this post is being read by someone who can (and perhaps even splice in the bass from the nearfield measurement) while I try to figure it out myself. Thank you Napilopez for the thorough explanation.




Spinorama courtesy of @napilopez

0-90°H

Vertical up

Vertical down

Polars

Grille effect on-axis

Nearfield

Listening window consistency. The slight 'outlier' is 10° below the acoustical axis.

 

[daftcombo]

Great measurements!

Around 3,600 € for a pair at the moment.

How do they compare to the biggest 33xx?

 

[napilopez]

Today I performed measurements of the Genelec 1032A speaker. This is a model dating back to 1992, and it is the largest 2-way model made by Genelec. It is also the model I'm using as LCR in my small home theater room. The most recent version is the 1032C so in a way, despite it being a 28 year old design, it is still a current model in a basic sense.

The measurements were performed in a large space at 2m distance using the ground plane method which yields good accuracy using a 15ms gated window.

Also shown is a basic distortion test performed at various levels, nearfield measurement of the drivers (not level matched) as well as well as the effect of the grill (horizontal 0-90°)

Measurements were performed using the acoustic axis as stated in the manual, which is at 29cm from the bottom up and roughly inbetween the woofer and tweeter, and was aimed directly at the microphone capsule.

Since I don't have the software needed to properly weight the measurements to present a proper spinorama, I was hoping this post is being read by someone who can (and perhaps even splice in the bass from the nearfield measurement) while I try to figure it out myself

The .mdat files may be downloaded through the following link: https://we.tl/t-qla26BfaRg


View attachment 93034

Sweet! Thanks for sharing I'll respond to you on the other thread -- VCAD makes spins automatically.

 

[TimVG]

Great measurements!

Around 3,600 € for a pair at the moment.

How do they compare to the biggest 33xx?

I bought em for €500 a piece! I've no idea as I only have the 8030 and 8020 apart from these.

 

[TimVG]

Some action shots

 

[q3cpma]

Official specs for comparison.

 

[TimVG]

Official specs for comparison.

The only substantial difference is the 'bump' at 1.5kHz.. Which does show in the 1032C measurements as well.

 

[q3cpma]

I wonder why the 1032 was never as smooth off-axis as the 80x0 serie, the huge waveguide shouldn't be the limiter. Is the cabinet diffraction doing all of this?

 

[TimVG]

I wonder why the 1032 was never as smooth off-axis as the 80x0 serie, the huge waveguide shouldn't be the limiter. Is the cabinet diffraction doing all of this?

Seems possible. I'm no expert. I bought a pair out of curiosity, I wondered how a 10" woofer coupled to a 1" dome would hold up. Turns out I liked it more than my Revels (F206) so I added a third.

 

[q3cpma]

Seems possible. I'm no expert. I bought a pair out of curiosity, I wondered how a 10" woofer coupled to a 1" dome would hold up. Turns out I liked it more than my Revels (F206) so I added a third.

Too bad it's a bit eclipsed by the S360 now, but still like the look of "mini main monitor".

 

[MZKM]

Since I don't have the software needed to properly weight the measurements to present a proper spinorama, I was hoping this post is being read by someone who can

If you still need, you can use the following link and paste in your measurements:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FB_nxkGlp08aHm949K_Ap68qME0-TX1vCri-Wh0ixiw/copy

I am only on my phone, so I can’t be doing anything with .mdat files.

 

[daftcombo]

I bought em for €500 a piece! I've no idea as I only have the 8030 and 8020 apart from these.

Oh then can you compare those three?
I'm considering getting the 8030 right now, but wonder if the 8020 would be sufficient... or the other way around, would the 8030 be sufficient?

 

[TimVG]

Oh then can you compare those three?
I'm considering getting the 8030 right now, but wonder if the 8020 would be sufficient... or the other way around, would the 8030 be sufficient?

Depends on what you'll use em for. Desktop or surrounds in a small room: 8020 .. anything more than that, 8030 all the way.
Sonically they're all pretty close to my ears.

 

[napilopez]

So here's the spin I can get from @TimVG's data. Nearfield bass sum was merged over 1 octave centered at about 125 hz

I think some of the rear hemisphere data is a bit too messy for VCAD to do a reliable simulation of frequenciees below 100hz based off of the nearfield bass measurements. Based on the differences with Genelec's data, the hump centered around 300Hz and subsequent dip at around 800 Hz makes me wonder if there's some issue with the ground plane method.


But this still gives us most of the full picture, and we know the speaker is for the most part flat.

 

[MZKM]

So here's the spin I can get from @TimVG's data. Nearfield bass sum was merged over 1 octave centered at about 125 hz


View attachment 93058
I think some of the rear hemisphere data is a bit too messy for VCAD to do a reliable simulation of frequenciees below 100hz based off of the nearfield bass measurements. Based on the differences with Genelec's data, the hump centered around 300Hz and subsequent dip at around 800 Hz makes me wonder if there's some issue with the ground plane method.


But this still gives us most of the full picture, and we know the speaker is for the most part flat.

PIR is almost always very similar to Early Reflections, yet this Spin shows almost a near constant 1dB difference in the midrange and treble...

 

[TimVG]

So here's the spin I can get from @TimVG's data. Nearfield bass sum was merged over 1 octave centered at about 125 hz


View attachment 93058
I think some of the rear hemisphere data is a bit too messy for VCAD to do a reliable simulation of frequenciees below 100hz based off of the nearfield bass measurements. Based on the differences with Genelec's data, the hump centered around 300Hz and subsequent dip at around 800 Hz makes me wonder if there's some issue with the ground plane method.


But this still gives us most of the full picture, and we know the speaker is for the most part flat.

Thanks a lot! I'll have to see if I can optimise the measurement method to work out some possible kinks. Sadly it's a bit too expensive to ship this speaker to Amir.

 

[napilopez]

PIR is almost always very similar to Early Reflections, yet this Spin shows almost a near constant 1dB difference in the midrange and treble...

In my experience, that's about right. They're usually about 0.5-1dB off with the differences extending lower on larger speakers.

See, for example, both my and Harman spins and PIRs for the L82:

 

[MZKM]

In my experience, that's about right. They're usually about 0.5-1dB off with the differences extending lower on larger speakers.

See, for example, both my and Harman spins and PIRs for the L82:

View attachment 93074

View attachment 93075

Hmm, I usually have some offset too, but usually they have some overlap.
However, looking at my Spin of the 8341A, there is no overlap, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[hardisj]

some things that stand out to me as potentially erroneous:
The 0° and LW measurements are 4-5dB below the Power Response and ER response.
The wide-Q midrange bump of about 3dB seems off when compared against the 700Hz-1.5kHz region

@TimVG flip the speaker upside down so the tweeter as off the floor. that should improve your HF response accuracy.
Also, as a sanity check, put the speaker on a stand and measure. As high off the ground as you can. 4 feet will be adequate. You really just want to make sure that a proper Farfield 4-pi response matches the ground plane response. I do this first to make sure the angle of the GP measurement is accurate. As long as the GP HF lines up with the FF midrange and high-frequency response then I know I'm good to continue on.

 

[TimVG]

some things that stand out to me as potentially erroneous:
The 0° and LW measurements are 4-5dB below the Power Response and ER response.
The wide-Q midrange bump of about 3dB seems off when compared against the 700Hz-1.5kHz region

@TimVG flip the speaker upside down so the tweeter as off the floor. that should improve your HF response accuracy.
Also, as a sanity check, put the speaker on a stand and measure. As high off the ground as you can. 4 feet will be adequate. You really just want to make sure that a proper Farfield 4-pi response matches the ground plane response. I do this first to make sure the angle of the GP measurement is accurate. As long as the GP HF lines up with the FF HF then I know I'm good to continue on.

The angle should be correct as I calculated it and verified it with a digital level I'll try flipping it (probably next week though as I'm done measuring for today) and seeing what happens. 800-1500Hz is what I'm most concerned about being erroneous along with some gain down low.

Also anything past 100° gets erratic really quickly, I'm not sure what's up with that and if it's a limitation of the ground plane method or if I'm doing something wrong (although I'm not sure what I could be doing wrong).